Posted on 09/02/2019 4:35:14 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Nobody in the United States was owning slaves just for the sake of owning slaves. They owned slaves to make profit out of them. If you think slavery wasn't about money, you are a fool.
Breckenridge and his fellow democrats were very clear with their stated intentions.
And the facts are very clear that this is irrelevant. There would *BE* no significant slavery in the territories regardless of what anyone said, because there was no profit in it.
Economics always wins. It's why socialism doesn't work. The economics of it doesn't work, or are you too stupid to understand economics?
And yet you gave it a retarded reply.
A great intellect you are not.
"In view of such effects and consequences here from the mere possession of one branch of Congress we ought not to shut our eyes to the effects of the possession of the government in all of its departments by any Black Republican. It would abolitionize Maryland in a year, raise a powerful abolition party in Va., Kentucky, and Missouri in two years, and foster and rear up a free labour party in [the] whole South in four years. Thus the strife will be transferred from the North to our own friends. Then security and peace in our borders is gone forever.
Therefore I deeply lament that any portion of our people shall hug to their bosoms the delusive idea that we should wait for some "overt act." I shall consider our ruin already accomplished when we submit to a party whose every principle, whose daily declarations and acts are an open proclamation of war against us, and the insidious effects of whose policy I see around me every day. For one I would raise an insurrection, if I could not carry a revolution, to save my countrymen, and endeavor to save them in spite of themselves."
– Letter from Senator Robert Toombs to Alexander Stephens-February 10,1860
I didn’t try to make the declaration about slavery, I said it was a reason why slave results could be justified. It is ABOUT human freedom, slaves re human.
Nobody in the United States was owning slaves just for the sake of owning slaves. They owned slaves to make profit out of them. If you think slavery wasn't about money, you are a fool.
Really?
ROFLOL, that is your answer?
Let me look that your 'owners manual' for your slaves
...Diogenes Lamp can only purchase this slave for the purpose of planting and harvesting cotton to make money. All other uses are hereby prohibited to Diogenes Lamp. Prohibited uses: Building pyramids; Construction; Brick making; Accounting; Fornication; Reproduction; Fighting as a gladiator; Using to propel ships; Blacksmithing; Butlering; Manservant; etc. etc. etc....
Well looky there.
No wonder you have such a limited view on how you can use your slaves. You signed a limitation on their use when you purchased them.
Breckenridge and his fellow democrats were very clear that they wanted to be able to freely take their slaves into the territories if they wanted to.
That was why the infamous Douglas (D) sponsored and got passed the Kansas-Nebraska act. The act which allowed these two territories to vote if they were to be free or slave!
The act which causes a ten year bloody conflict in Kansas as both sides fought for supremacy
Quick side bar: Pst, there are more territories than just 'New Mexico'
Why even a blind mole knows that the Republican party formed in 1854 in direct opposition to the democrats Kansas-Nebraska act !
The Republicans were opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories. The democrats were so scared of the Republicans that they quit the Union and started a civil war rather than submit to a split government with the Republicans controlling the Presidency and the House and them controlling the Courts and the Senate.
Let us examine this foolish 'persons' claim
I don't pay as much attention to what people say as I do to what they do. There were 12 slaves in all of New Mexico Territory, and that was when New Mexico Territory looked like this.
So there were only 12 slaves in all of New Mexico?
Why was that?
"older Mexican Republic legal traditions of the territory, which abolished black, but not Indian, slavery in 1834, took precedence and should be continued. Regardless of its official status, ... As in New Mexico, slavery was already extremely limited, due to earlier Mexican traditions, laws, and patterns of settlement.
Oh, Slavery had been banned previously by the Mexicans.
Did your slaver democrats want to take slaves to New Mexico?
Why yes, yes they did.
Did the Republicans try to avoid the war by allowing the democrats to establish slavery there?
Why yes, yes they did! "As one of the final attempts at compromise to avoid the Civil War, in December 1860, a U.S. House of Representatives committee proposed to admit New Mexico as a slave state immediately. Although the measure was approved by the committee on December 29, 1860, Southern representatives did not take up this offer, as many of them had already left Congress due to imminent declarations of secession by their states..
What is your next lie Slo-Joe?
My position is the same as the founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
States have a right to independence, and they do not have to justify their reasons to those people who wish to deny it to them.
It is not about "human freedom." It is about asserting a right to be independent from a Union.
People subsequently claimed it was about "human freedom", and they base this entirely on those five words from Jefferson, but the document was not in fact about this.
People have made the document into a claim about "human freedom", but this is not at all the reason for it's existence, and is an example of "creative interpretation" to twist out a meaning that wasn't intended by the signatories.
The basis for the independence is individual human rights. “All men are created equal” Why are you spinning so hard to deny what is right there in the document? Cleanse yourself and stop the nonsense.
"Prohibited uses: Building pyramids; "
Uh, nobody was building pyramids in the United States.
"Fighting as a gladiator; Using to propel ships; Blacksmithing; Butlering; Manservant; etc. etc. etc...."
I'm glad this guy is on your side. He is a fool.
Quick side bar: Pst, there are more territories than just 'New Mexico'
Cause Mr. Brilliant Genius Pikachu thinks cotton might grow in even more northerly territories than the ones it wouldn't grow in in New Mexico.
Yeah, you got me there. I never thought to mention that perhaps they could grow cotton up in Utah territory. Good thing we have a smart guy like you to think of these things that we ordinary intelligence people would have missed.
The Republicans were opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories.
Cause 12 of them in New Mexico territory was a national crises! There were more slaves in Delaware or Pennsylvania than in all of New Mexico territory.
To clarify the point, the Northern coalition headed by New York wealth, was very much against the expansion of voting members in congress allied with the Southern states, because they liked their Southern Milk Cow.
If they got more support in Congress, the Milk Cow might kick, and stop letting them have all the milk.
Headquarters of the "Free Soil" movement was in New York instead of a thousand miles to the West, where you know, the actual land was.
New York wealth and influence still runs the nation today.
Yeah, and that's why there was no slavery in Texas.
Stop being stupid...
If you can...
In 1776, the big concept floating around the intelligentsia was "natural law." There were many learned men of the times writing on and opining on "natural law", and then you had some like Rousseau who wrote of the "rights of man" while sending his very own children to an orphanage.
The Founder's sources for insight into natural law were Grotius, Puffendorf, Wolf, Vattel, Rutherford, Burlamaqui and so forth.
This business of seeing slaves as peers was not at all on their radar at this time. (Other than Jefferson, possibly because of Sally Hemmings who is said to look exactly like Jefferson's wife, and was indeed her half-sister.)
Why are you spinning so hard to deny what is right there in the document?
I'm not spinning, i'm trying to stop *YOUR* spinning. The document wasn't written for the purpose of articulating that slaves are equal. It just wasn't. You could remove that verbiage from it completely, and it would change nothing regarding what the document was intended to accomplish.
Those five words comprise 0.26821% of the total words in the document, yet people think they contain 100% of it's meaning and purpose. This is irrational.
People have been sold the claim that the Declaration was about freedom for all men, but this is very inaccurate. It should have been about freedom for all, but i'm not going to lie to myself or lie to others by claiming it was.
“It is true nobody was building pyramids in the United States.”
Per the 1860 census, there were 3.95 million slaves in the United States. About 2.7 million of those slaves were actively employed in cash crop agriculture.
The other 1.25 million slaves, were used to build rail roads, court houses, forts, post offices. They were trained as masons, black smiths, wheel wrights, carpenters. In the South, these people were competed directly against free labor pling those trades. All Southern manufacturing operations employed slaves so some extent. Tredegar employed 40% slave labor. No only pick & shove work, but as mill wright, machinists, blacksmith etc. Virtually every facet of Southern economic activity relied heavily on slave labor.
Had Southerners decided to move in any large numbers into the South West, they would have taken their slaves with them. To build houses, roads, railroads, churches, punch cattle, tend sheep, farm food crops for the masters.
Never would they be there in the numbers as in MS, AL or LA.
but they would have been there.
This is a reasonable reply. Pikachu_Dad needs to see it so he knows what one looks like.
Most of the stuff you mention would not have transferred to the territories. There likely wouldn't have been a New Mexico territory Iron works, so there likely wouldn't be many mill wrights or machinists, but blacksmiths? Probably, because that was a commonly needed service in that era.
Masons, Carpenters, and road work? Yes, but again, not anything on the scale of what was happening in the Southern states, and I dare say the smallness of their numbers would encourage calls for dissolution of slavery in the territories.
My point, which I think you grasp better than most, is that these states would be slave states mostly in name, but not so much in reality. The fight was more about the power they would have in congress rather than whether or not rampant slavery was going to happen in these territories made into states.
As I said, Pennsylvania and Delaware still had slaves all the way up to the Civil War, but not very many relatively.
Existing law was making lots of money for the Northern "free" states, and they had the stronger coalition, and wanted the Southern states kept in the minority so they could not undo the laws which favored the northern industrialists.
And it was worth a lot of money to keep the Southern coalition in congress in the minority.
Selected the year 2004 did ya?
Why didnt you try the year 2016? Huh?
It was about political power in Congress. The South had been losing it’s influence as geographic region since the 1840s.
I have long selected 2004 because it illustrates another point I have long made about demographics in the United States, both past and present.
It is a habit for me to pick 2004.
Why would 2016 be better?
The North had absolutely no intention of changing slavery so long as they kept getting the money from it.
Right, because like the Borg, Northerners didn't have separate minds and personalities and ideas. They only had one consciousness and only acted as one 20 million headed creature.
You are still writing in cliches and overgeneralizations and not seriously considering the diversity of opinion that prevailed in the free states. People voted as they did for different reasons, some noble, others not. Only a bigot or a hack propagandist reduces those reasons to one oversimplified motivation.
You create a straw man of a pure moral North and then knock it down with your own straw man of a racist, mercenary North. You talk about "caring." The 19th century spoke about principles. If we had to wait for everyone to act in loving kindness before any injustice or abuse could be ended, we would still have slavery.
Read a book sometime.
Maybe you ought to try and investigate the southern Democrat history. Be honest just for a second. Take a look at the Democrat Party slogan for the year 1868.
The Old Democrat party of the Old South is still the same as the new democrat party of today. EXCEPT, its being made even more radical by the communist branch.
When did the democrat party allow black Americans on the floor of its nominating convention?
Dont defend these bastards and claim to be a republican conservative. If you do, your not.
It was exactly about this. I had been taught all my life that it was about moral objections to slavery in the territories. I only learned in the last few years that "moral objections" were just astro-turf, and the real bone of contention was control of congress.
The South had been losing power, but they were still producing most of the taxes, and most of the shipping business into and out of New York.
They were only getting about 40% of the total revenue their exports produced, and the rest was going to New York and Washington DC. With no ability to control congress, they could change no laws that would impact the existing circumstance.
Yes. "Expansion of slavery" really mean "expanding Southern power in congress, and nobody was really talking about moving large numbers of slaves into the territories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.